sigdiamond2000: The GOP would probably assassinate Ron Paul before letting him run for president on the Republican ticket.

They wouldn't need to do anything nearly that drastic. Party conventions exist for a reason. The point is moot, however, since Ron Paul is not going to win more than a handful of states, if any at all.

unyon: Short of a Palin-esque addition to the ticket, the GOPs problem is going to be the massive enthusiasm gap in November.

I'd vote for Michael Palin, but he's not eligible is he?

sigdiamond2000: The GOP would probably assassinate Ron Paul before letting him run for president on the Republican ticket.

I'm curious about this. I mean, I don't agree with Rep. Paul, but I'm on the other end of the political scale from him. What does the GOP dislike about him specifically? Is it the opposition to the wars on terror and drugs, or is it something else?

How interesting things will get on fox news if Ron Paul wins. I really hope he does, if only for the entertainment value of it all.

sigdiamond2000: The two most important things to the Republican base are American military cock-waving and "sticking it to the hippies."

Which is weird, because otherwise it seems that Paul lines up pretty nicely behind the GOP platform.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: sigdiamond2000: The two most important things to the Republican base are American military cock-waving and "sticking it to the hippies."

Which is weird, because otherwise it seems that Paul lines up pretty nicely behind the GOP platform.

Ron Paul doesn't give a shiat about pandering to the mouth-breathing masses. He isn't going to get up on a pulpit and preach the evils of abortion, gay marriage, and scientists (who all lie about global warming). He's more concerned with a libertarian agenda - get off the fiat system and into a gold standard, deregulation, small government (absurdly so).

His subborn adherence to political platforms that actually matter make him wholely unpalatable to the vast majority of voters (not just republican primary voters)... and his government-breaking ideas make him unelectable for the rest.

Lionel Mandrake: OMG It would be like SO totally awesome if RON PAUL won in Iowa.

The shiatstorm that followed would require a truckload of popcorn

As much as I dislike him, I want him to win Iowa as well. The number of pants that will be shat will be amazing.

EvilEgg: He is an actual small government conservative, not a mouth platitudes small government conservative.

Which is why he frequently inserts earmarks for his district in spending bills.

I am voting for Ron Paul in the Texas primary. Hell yes.

Obama vs Paul would be epic. Great debates, and then a total slaughter in November. operation Chaos part deux: screw the GOP.

Cagey B: EvilEgg: He is an actual small government conservative, not a mouth platitudes small government conservative.

Which is why he frequently inserts earmarks for his district in spending bills.

And running as a Republican, instead of running honestly as a Libertarian.

Cagey B: EvilEgg: He is an actual small government conservative, not a mouth platitudes small government conservative.

Which is why he frequently inserts earmarks for his district in spending bills.

He then votes against the bills with earmarks. So he is still principled, but if those other fools want to send money to his district then so be it.

Epiphani: Ron Paul is the only "real" conservative in the race. What the republicans want isn't conservatism, it's military and corporate hegemony.



I'll let you in on a little secret: corporate hegemony is exactly what you get when you institute Libertarian policies like Paul's.

maniacbastard: I am voting for Ron Paul

I think I'll join you since my dream candidate Palin is busy swimming up stream.

Pochas: Cagey B: EvilEgg: He is an actual small government conservative, not a mouth platitudes small government conservative.

Which is why he frequently inserts earmarks for his district in spending bills.

He then votes against the bills with earmarks. So he is still principled, but if those other fools want to send money to his district then so be it.

I'm very vocally against gang rape, but if I see one happening I have no problem going over and getting a little action myself. Gang rape is a societal problem, not something that can be solved on a case by case basis.

Cagey B: EvilEgg: He is an actual small government conservative, not a mouth platitudes small government conservative.

Which is why he frequently inserts earmarks for his district in spending bills.

You can make fun of Paul for many things, but trying to paint him as a big government conservative is a pretty hard thing to do. If that is your objective, I'd look more towards his stance on abortion rights then his constant no-votes on earmarks.

maniacbastard: and then a total slaughter in November.

The GOP have gotten by on "if you say something mentioning something else in passing as if the latter was an established fact, then the populous will accept it as an established fact" behavior for a long time. Actually, all politicians have.

Ron Paul (knowingly or not) would exploit the same behavior with the "Obviously, removing government agency X would benefit industry Y" style of statements, and he'd do so with more conviction than the rest of the GOP caucus.

So...it depends on your definition of "total slaughter".

I find it interesting that noted liberal blogger Nate Silver is concentrating on the Republicans instead of Obama's re-election chances...given that every single poll shows that everyone wants Obama out of office.

The Iowa Caucuses are a public vote. You have to travel to the Caucus site, and stand with your candidate's other supporters in full view of your neighbors and family. Iowa is less about the private personal belief and more about the public perception. There are two types of "votes", the fervent supporter of a candidate, and the safe choice that causes the least public angst. Ron Paul has the most fervent voters, which means he will more then likely have the most votes. However Bachmann and Santourm will do higher then expected and Romney and Newt will do lower then expected. Because the former is a safe pick for your neighbors to see while the latter is not.

The Iowa caucuses gauge two things. Strength of field organization, and fervor of candidate's supporters. Therefore it's only important to campaign wonks and the 24-media that has to fill time.

"... but stupid."

Jaykzo: If that is your objective, I'd look more towards his stance on abortion rights then his constant no-votes on earmarks.

Earmarks that would not have existed for him to vote "no" on had he not inserted them. There's nothing principled about pretending to not want the outcome that you engineered.

But yes, while we're at it, the anti-choice stance and the creationism also make him a poor choice to run anything.

I wonder if Ron Paul could take the youth vote. They're up in arms over what they see as Obama's continuation of Bush's illegal practices and see Ron Paul as a more lawful and trustworthy option.

snowshovel: I find it interesting that noted liberal blogger Nate Silver is concentrating on the Republicans instead of Obama's re-election chances...given that every single poll shows that everyone wants Obama out of office.

Everybody wants "generic Republican", but give them the real names in this race and they want Obama.

sprawl15: Lionel Mandrake: OMG It would be like SO totally awesome if RON PAUL won in Iowa.

The shiatstorm that followed would require a truckload of popcorn

As much as I dislike him, I want him to win Iowa as well. The number of pants that will be shat will be amazing.

I guess I wouldn't find such a victory surprising. But then again, I don't run into that many chickenhawk Republicans. In fact, I can only think of one right-leaning associate, and he thinks Paul is too extreme.

The best government is a justice department, and that's it!
What can I say that will get you to vote for me?
The only valid interpretation of the constitution is my interpretation. Everyone else can go to jail.
The country should be be turned into the United States of Texas.
The only reasonable government is a Christian theocratic government.
I'm still here guys! I still have a chance to win.
I'm still here guys! I don't have a chance to win.

I kind of really hope Ron Paul wins as much as I vehemently disagree with him on a multitude of issues. He's the one candidate that actually says what he believes instead of bending to the winds of political opinions, as opposed to Newt or Romney. If Ron Paul were to debate Barack Obama, I think it would be a great philosophical debate about our country's core beliefs that we are sorely lacking. With a Newt or Romney you'd just get some expedient bullshiat about obamacare or infidelity.

Outrageous Muff: The Iowa Caucuses are a public vote. You have to travel to the Caucus site, and stand with your candidate's other supporters in full view of your neighbors and family. Iowa is less about the private personal belief and more about the public perception. There are two types of "votes", the fervent supporter of a candidate, and the safe choice that causes the least public angst. Ron Paul has the most fervent voters, which means he will more then likely have the most votes. However Bachmann and Santourm will do higher then expected and Romney and Newt will do lower then expected. Because the former is a safe pick for your neighbors to see while the latter is not.

The Iowa caucuses gauge two things. Strength of field organization, and fervor of candidate's supporters. Therefore it's only important to campaign wonks and the 24-media that has to fill time.

Not true. What you've described is the Democratic Party's process in Iowa, and the way the Republicans did it in the past. Things have changed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses#Republican_Party_process

I'll go for Ron Paul. Why not? Our country is farked anyway, might as well go for a chance at real change. After the NDAA I have no faith in Obama anyway, and at least Ron Paul will take us back to a non-interventionalist foreign policy.

There's only one reliable way to know if RON PAUL comes in first in Iowa. Turn to Fox News when the results come in, and if their lead story is who came in 2nd and 3rd, you know he won.

tomcatadam: So...it depends on your definition of "total slaughter".

Something like this wouldn't hurt:



Except change red and blue and Ron Paul gets Arizona or some other insignificant racist shiathole.

maniacbastard: Something like this wouldn't hurt:

God, what the f*cking hell was wrong with America in 1984?

This is a funny situation. Here you have the corporatists who will do anything to prevent someone like Ron Paul from winning due to his unpredictableness and due to him being someone who doesn't bend on his beliefs. Yet their party might actually give this to Ron Paul.

There is a mini-civil war brewing in the Republican party between true conservatives and between the kleptocratic ruling class that uses these true conservatives as useful idiots.

Goodfella: This is a funny situation. Here you have the corporatists who will do anything to prevent someone like Ron Paul from winning due to his unpredictableness and due to him being someone who doesn't bend on his beliefs. Yet their party might actually give this to Ron Paul.

There is a mini-civil war brewing in the Republican party between true conservatives and between the kleptocratic ruling class that uses these true conservatives as useful idiots.

A Paul win would definitely signal a conservative base ready to get back to its roots.

maniacbastard: tomcatadam: So...it depends on your definition of "total slaughter".

Something like this wouldn't hurt:

[www.historycentral.com image 640x369]

Except change red and blue and Ron Paul gets Arizona or some other insignificant racist shiathole.

I think that map is wrong. It has Maryland as going for Mondale, when he only picked up Minnesota and Washington DC.

If the race stays as competitive as it has been, this first Caucus won't mean all that much. Remember which Republican got the Iowan win for the '08 election? It was Huckabee. The Huckster didn't come close to being the nominee. He stayed in it till the very end almost, but he had no shot at winning at a point well before he finally dropped out.

Its one state. Of 50. And it hasn't happened yet. Ron Paul is a damn sight better than Newt, but their whole pack can only be described as lackluster.